Not How, but why is Socialism right - Thoughts

[Lardlad95]

Why philosophically and morally are we as socialist and or communists right.

Why should a man give up part of his earnings to one who chooses not to work

*Note: I haven't gone cappie I just want to look at it objectively

[bolshevik1917]

A big confusion among right wingers, capitalists and sceptics (im not accusing you lardlad) is that socialists want to 'tax the rich' and 'protect lazy people, who can work but dont'

this is rubbish, Lenin said countless times in many of his books 'he who does not work shall not eat'

we cannot also tell people communism is 'right' but patiently explain its basic principless, how it leaves out no one, how it benefits the majority of humanity, how it opperates for the common good in the world.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 1:06 pm on Nov. 27, 2002
A big confusion among right wingers, capitalists and sceptics (im not accusing you lardlad) is that socialists want to 'tax the rich' and 'protect lazy people, who can work but dont'

this is rubbish, Lenin said countless times in many of his books 'he who does not work shall not eat'

we cannot also tell people communism is 'right' but patiently explain its basic principless, how it leaves out no one, how it benefits the majority of humanity, how it opperates for the common good in the world.



he who does not eat does not work is the same in capitalism.

but under communism shouldn't you provide for everyone regardless

[bolshevik1917]

No, 'he who does not WORK shall not EAT' is a vital part of the 'dicatorship of the prolitarian'

Its not like people are being rounded up into factories for 12 hour shifts, it is people being asked to contribute a few hours of their time each day (for with everyone working there is less to be done)

Once contributing a few hours of labour each day becomes a habit, we can then go by the 'each according to his ability, each according to his needs' system.

[Kehoe]

Comrade bolshevik1917 wrote,"Lenin said countless times in many of his books 'he who does not work shall not eat", ... this sentiment can be found in the Bible,Gandhi expressed the same as did most philosophical thinkers down through the ages.It is reported that Marx himself never had a job and his life was subsidized by capital acquired from Engels and the factory Engels had inherited from his father.Tell us if you will ... what form of manual labor did Comrade Lenin partake of?What profit is an idea that exists in a vacuum?Mohandas K Gandhi established ashrams composed of people from various backgrounds and religions who lived and worked equally in a communal-type environment.Gandhi himself took part in every form of labor expected of the communal members and willingly chose to live as the poorest of his countrymen ... the Mahatma was indeed a socialist who taught by example.I suppose my first exposure to socialism came by way of investigating the life and teachings of Jesus,this was a man who witnessed the injustices that existed under the Roman Empire,the exploitation of the people by priests and religious pretenders,the shunning of the poor and aflicted which were treated as social outcasts.Jesus went among the neglected masses spreading a message of love and compassion,of sharing the burden of ones fellowman,to give to the needy without any expectation of reward,that men are more than mere beasts of burden to be exploited for the gain of a select few men through cunning and deceitfulness.The kingdom of God was the establishment of a just society that would care for the poor and unfortunate ... status and power are meaningless,"what will it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul(life)?and what will a man give in exchange for his life?"This was said concerning a man who had been blessed with an over-abundant harvest in which he thought to himself that he would build larger facilities in which to store his goods rather than considering the poor condition of his neighbors.This lies at the core of true socialist thought,to view oneself in context of the world rather than view the world in context of oneself.Jesus said that were a man to give only to those which have the capacity to repay then such is not a gift but an investment and this lies at the core of capitalist greed.A lifetime of socialist debate and speculation will not produce a morsel of bread ... for the most part all of this philosophizing and theorizing upon socialist issues is nothing more than an intellectual game in which people pair off and try to lure one another into an ideological checkmate.One single act outweighs ten thousand volumes of philosophical writings.Do you think that youre the first or last person that has ever concluded that the world is unfair?The wind has carried away the dust of men who themselves debated and argued the same injustices you now consider.Why should the world suddenly transform itself into a utopian paradise simply because you bother your head about these problems?Why criticize the capitalist system when you support it through your consumer and tax dollars,for in this you are its indirect accomplice?Why feed a mad dog then complain that it bites?It is the material comforts that the present system provides which affords us the leisure in which to study,think and bewail the conditions of those whose lives are full of anguish and whose only philosophy is work.Still,there is a great prejudism even among workers,I myself witnessed this as a coal-miner in that certain miners would talk of their nice,expensive cars and homes,exotic trips,high-society friends,etc,while criticizing and condemning the poor or those with less-paying jobs such as fast-food workers and such.Give a ditch-digger a raise and suddenly he becomes much better than the street-sweeper.Its plain that this capitalist egoism isnt reserved only for executives but permeates the entire rotten structure.The world is full of socio-political philosophers ... but there are very few socialists.Ben Kingsley in his role as Gandhi said(and I paraphrase),"until we go out among the masses and partake of their hardships we do not represent the poor of India".Those things we discuss here in this community are futile and fruitless,they tend to serve only our individual egos and vanity in that we each wish to display the greater intellect and thus win the admiration of all others.As for the question,"Why is socialism right?"As long as it is confined to mere words and nothing more ... its as worthless as dirt. - Karo

[bolshevik1917]

phew....you should try paragraphs kehoe, I cant imagine many people fighting their way through posts like that.

Anyway, you note that Marx did not sell his labour in return for wages, this is correct. But when I, Lenin or anyone else make the statement 'he who does not work shall not eat' we are not talking about within capitalism but the revolutionary period known as the dicatorship of the proliterian.

In capitalism, he who eats lots does not work, he who works lots does not eat...etc etc.

Interesting stuff on Jesus, apparently he was a very misunderstood revolutionary socialist and athiest, we'll never know..

[Xvall]

Capitalism does not follow the same system. Capitalism follows more of a system like this -

He who does not work, starves; unless he is in a high enough management position of a business.

He who works, barely gets enough food to eat.


(Edited by Drake Dracoli at 9:13 pm on Nov. 27, 2002)

[Umoja]

I see the starting Socialist societies as still having money. So you work, and you buy your food. Taxes would be higher for everyone though, and possibly the prerequistie food, clothes and shelter could be supplied, all extra money could be used to buy whatever a person wanted.

In some of the final stages of Communism, I could really care less about, because we'd need to see how the early stages worked out and adjust accordingly.

Well, I guess it's bad not to think long term, but honestly I can't.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What you said is abit inacuarte, about how a man who works desrves equaly as much as a non-worker. The motto is "To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities." Each man is expected to do what he is capable of, then he shall receive what he needs. The reason is that each person should have equal rights to succed in life, regardless of how much money they are able to aquire.

[redstar2000]

I have no personal experience on this, but I'm told that VERY young children--only just able to walk and talk--already have a sense of "fairness". "That's not fair", is one of the earliest sentences a child utters. Of course, I don't believe in anything as silly as a "fairness gene", but there does seem to be something there that is nearly "hard-wired" in the human brain...like the capacity to learn languages. Given reasonable conditions, it emerges as naturally as a plant develops leaves or a kitten chases anything small that moves.

If "fairness" goes that deep into what it means to be human, then it's only to be expected that we have, for thousands of years, explored what might real "fairness" be like. Communism is as far into the future as we can see, even dimly, and is our BEST attempt so far at a life that would be fair.

"Life isn't fair!" is the stern rebuke that all seekers after justice receive from those who have BENEFITTED in some way from life's unfairness. It's another way of saying "I'm privileged and you're not...and dammit it's going to STAY that way!"

But not forever.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Victorcommie on 8:36 pm on Nov. 27, 2002
What you said is abit inacuarte, about how a man who works desrves equaly as much as a non-worker. The motto is "To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities." Each man is expected to do what he is capable of, then he shall receive what he needs. The reason is that each person should have equal rights to succed in life, regardless of how much money they are able to aquire.


That would imply that everyman would give according to his or her abilities, how do you guaruantee this?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 2:45 pm on Nov. 27, 2002
No, 'he who does not WORK shall not EAT' is a vital part of the 'dicatorship of the prolitarian'

Its not like people are being rounded up into factories for 12 hour shifts, it is people being asked to contribute a few hours of their time each day (for with everyone working there is less to be done)

Once contributing a few hours of labour each day becomes a habit, we can then go by the 'each according to his ability, each according to his needs' system.




Once again I ask how do you gurauntee this

You expect everyone to work.

However if there is no punishment then why would someone work.

And if there is punishment by not eating then how is Communism morally or philosophically right if we don't provide.

All it has become is capitalism's innevetability: A large corparation running the show, in this instance the corparation is the State

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 5:19 pm on Nov. 27, 2002
Capitalism does not follow the same system. Capitalism follows more of a system like this -

He who does not work, starves; unless he is in a high enough management position of a business.

He who works, barely gets enough food to eat.


(Edited by Drake Dracoli at 9:13 pm on Nov. 27, 2002)


Under capitalism if I don't work and I'm living n my own, I can't buy food...Ie I don't eat.

yes part of what you said is true but capitalism atleast punishes those who chose not to work

how do we do this under socialism

[Exploited Class]

Personally I don’t mind paying for the very few that do not wish to work, it doesn’t bother me; I enjoy working to some degree or maybe I should say I enjoy being active. I do not enjoy working to make somebody else richer, or for higher profits or out of competition. I believe most people enjoy doing the same, the problem right now is that work entails doing so for survival, for the mighty dollar, to make somebody else profits, long 9 hour days, overtime and management looking out for the company and the company’s interests. Never mind that it is 5 days on 2 days off for the rest of your life or till you make it to 65. I think people drop out now because of the rat race, not wanting to work for a person but for people a greater cause. I have always felt that if we worked for all of mankind then work would have a true direction and purpose, then people would find contributing much easier.

We would see reduce work weeks, less work stress, no unemployment ax hanging over our heads, more vacation time, relaxed working environments. When people are pushing for the dollar we can relax and enjoy our short stay here on earth for a while. People who do work will generally take care of those who don’t work and can out of sheer guilt, “you lazy, go work do something.” We see it already. Plus you can mix it up, there isn’t rules here people, you can work one place 2 days a week and another someplace else.

As far as how to get people to work, I would say till we wash this egotism out of us to some degree, we might need to do a credit based system. Everybody gets a dwelling, everybody gets food, everybody gets health, everybody has a vote, everybody gets clothes A, and everybody gets a TV That is across the board for everyone, retirement just got a lot easier. Credits, one per day or per 5 work days or whatever it is goes to the workers and those unfit to work. A new computer 20 credits, second computer 30 credits, car 100 credits. All available, nobody making more credits for working extra or doing a different job – unless there is a work shortage in one area.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from exploitedclass on 10:37 pm on Nov. 27, 2002
Personally I don’t mind paying for the very few that do not wish to work, it doesn’t bother me; I enjoy working to some degree or maybe I should say I enjoy being active. I do not enjoy working to make somebody else richer, or for higher profits or out of competition. I believe most people enjoy doing the same, the problem right now is that work entails doing so for survival, for the mighty dollar, to make somebody else profits, long 9 hour days, overtime and management looking out for the company and the company’s interests. Never mind that it is 5 days on 2 days off for the rest of your life or till you make it to 65. I think people drop out now because of the rat race, not wanting to work for a person but for people a greater cause. I have always felt that if we worked for all of mankind then work would have a true direction and purpose, then people would find contributing much easier.

We would see reduce work weeks, less work stress, no unemployment ax hanging over our heads, more vacation time, relaxed working environments. When people are pushing for the dollar we can relax and enjoy our short stay here on earth for a while. People who do work will generally take care of those who don’t work and can out of sheer guilt, “you lazy, go work do something.” We see it already. Plus you can mix it up, there isn’t rules here people, you can work one place 2 days a week and another someplace else.

As far as how to get people to work, I would say till we wash this egotism out of us to some degree, we might need to do a credit based system. Everybody gets a dwelling, everybody gets food, everybody gets health, everybody has a vote, everybody gets clothes A, and everybody gets a TV That is across the board for everyone, retirement just got a lot easier. Credits, one per day or per 5 work days or whatever it is goes to the workers and those unfit to work. A new computer 20 credits, second computer 30 credits, car 100 credits. All available, nobody making more credits for working extra or doing a different job – unless there is a work shortage in one area.


Two things

1. not everyone likes to work

2. I like your credit system idea, elaborate

[Umoja]

Money would need to be kept around, because it's more efficent then hard barter of straight up goods.

Punishment would exist, but it'd be community centric, with a person, being forced to do labor without pay, or go without food for awhile as a punishment, as decided by a jury of peers.

My thoughts have been that work would be irrelevant though, and that's when Capitalism and Communism fall apart. If everything becomes automated to such an extent that only a few people have to mind machines and everyone else just sits around being all artistic, wouldn't many of the problems of Capitalism and Communism fall apart?

[Jaha]

in my mind, the key to communism is the elimination of monetary value. no bardering or trading or selling or buying.

if you need something, you ask for it. then it is given to you. if someone asks something of you, you give it. firstly, this would be upheld by the kindness of the individuals and secondly, by the community (if need be).

the society as a whole would democratically decide what can and cannot be asked for, and they will decide if someone is asking or being asked too often. then they will enforce their decisions as necessary. democratically, they would also carry out punishment if unspeakable acts are commited.

community is based on communal ownership, not state run economies. if someone is able to give and they chose not to, they will be dealt with by a democratic judicial system.

quite simple

[Umoja]

But then again, I'm not a Communist, and haven't even looked into the subject enough to debate about a Communist society.

Socialism Baby!!!

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Umoja on 3:23 am on Nov. 28, 2002
Money would need to be kept around, because it's more efficent then hard barter of straight up goods.

Punishment would exist, but it'd be community centric, with a person, being forced to do labor without pay, or go without food for awhile as a punishment, as decided by a jury of peers.

My thoughts have been that work would be irrelevant though, and that's when Capitalism and Communism fall apart. If everything becomes automated to such an extent that only a few people have to mind machines and everyone else just sits around being all artistic, wouldn't many of the problems of Capitalism and Communism fall apart?


You idea of punishment seems a bit cruel and will ultimately fail as it wont always be fair because a jury can be biased especially since they will undoubtedly knowthe man.


Socialism Baby!!!

Amen

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Jaha on 5:32 am on Nov. 28, 2002
in my mind, the key to communism is the elimination of monetary value. no bardering or trading or selling or buying.

if you need something, you ask for it. then it is given to you. if someone asks something of you, you give it. firstly, this would be upheld by the kindness of the individuals and secondly, by the community (if need be).

the society as a whole would democratically decide what can and cannot be asked for, and they will decide if someone is asking or being asked too often. then they will enforce their decisions as necessary. democratically, they would also carry out punishment if unspeakable acts are commited.

community is based on communal ownership, not state run economies. if someone is able to give and they chose not to, they will be dealt with by a democratic judicial system.

quite simple



I don't kknow about you but I know that greed exist in the world.

You obviously feel that humans can be good and are an idealist

and I commend you for this

but this utopian idea simply can't work

human nature and emotions work against it

we can't devovle from economics

we can eventually evovle past it but that would take years of mental contemplation

[Kehoe]

Once upon a faded past life began in a golden loom ... the family.The community is the microcosm of society as a whole and the family was intended as the base unit of the community.A man and woman came together pledging themselves to one another and to the offspring they would jointly create.Today marriage is viewed as nothing more than a piece of paper and legal fees,as a business agreement or as a surviving form of enslavement.The unborn has come to be viewed as mere waste material that can be disposed of at will.The womens lib movement did not set about to gain equal rights for women but to drive a wedge between the sexes.The homosexual community manipulated the civil rights ammendment that was brought about to combat and destroy the vile effects of prejudice.Socialists talk of the idea that everyone must live a productive life ... what of the homosexual who by nature of his sexual orientation cannot reproduce but is allowed to adopt children?A child requires the presence of both a mother and a father ... when one parent is lacking a child tends to develop an imbalanced character and in the end society suffers for this.In this modern age where women are allowed to compete with men in the work place unemployment increases.Why do husbands and wives both seek out employment?In order to pay the bills and somehow get by ... nonesense!They both work in order to keep up with the Jones,to build up their bank-accounts and flaunt their possessions before those poor souls who wonder the streets jobless because of the greed of people such as these.If a man and his wife both wish to work let them share the same job in alternative shifts ... if the woman wants to work then let her husband stay home and tend to house work and their children.To consider socialism one must start with the family unit. - Karo

[Kehoe]

"Men ... should do their actual living and working in communities ... small enough to permit of genuine self-government and the assumption of personal responsibilities, federated into larger units in such a way that the temptation to abuse great power should not arise. The larger (structurally) a democracy grows, the less becomes the rule of the people and the smaller is the say of individuals and localised groups in dealing with their own destinies. Moreover, love and affection, are essentially personal relationships. Consequently, it is only in small groups that Charity, in the Pauline sense of the word, can manifest itself. Needless to say, the smallness of the group, in no way guarantees the emergence of Charity. In a large undifferentiated group, the possibility does not even exist, for the simple reason that most of its members cannot, in the nature of things, have personal relations with one another." - M.K.Gandhi

[peaccenicked]

kehoe.
Marx was a journalist and editor. Author of many books.
I would not say he was lazy.
He suffered depression in later life.
He was reading poetry like this:
http://emotionalliteracyeducation.com/clas...ine/ctdnt10.htm (http://emotionalliteracyeducation.com/classic_books_online/ctdnt10.htm)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 9:34 am on Nov. 28, 2002
kehoe.
Marx was a journalist and editor. Author of many books.
I would not say he was lazy.
He suffered depression in later life.
He was reading poetry like this:
http://emotionalliteracyeducation.com/clas...ine/ctdnt10.htm (http://emotionalliteracyeducation.com/classic_books_online/ctdnt10.htm)


Didn't most of those papers close in a few years?

[redstar2000]

Marx was "employed" as a correspondent for the New York Tribune (Horace Greeley's newspaper) but I believe that it's now thought that Engels actually wrote most of the articles. The "job" ended in 1860 when Marx was told his services were no longer required because the civil war took all the pages in Greeley's newspaper.

Marx wrote books and I'm not sure that it's known if he ever made a penny on royalities or advances. Engels used to send down 5 or 10 English Pounds ever so often...but it was a very impoverished life that Marx led until the last few years. He was not in good health in those last few years either, and was probably despondent as well, particularly over the death of his wife, Jenny.

He might well have thought, at the end, that his life went for nothing--we don't know. If he did think that, it would have been the biggest error he made in his whole life.

[Socialist Pig]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 6:42 am on Nov. 28, 2002


I don't kknow about you but I know that greed exist in the world.

You obviously feel that humans can be good and are an idealist

and I commend you for this

but this utopian idea simply can't work

human nature and emotions work against it

we can't devovle from economics

we can eventually evovle past it but that would take years of mental contemplation


That utopian dream can be achieved through the stages of communism. Through education and demonstration in a socialist government people will slowly rely less and less n the government for economic equality. As peoples counciousness grows the state withers until eventually we are left with a society that no longer requires the government to re-distribute the wealth.

"Human nature" is defined by the society we are in. To change human naure, we must change society.

(Edited by Socialist Pig at 9:19 pm on Dec. 1, 2002)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Socialist Pig on 9:17 pm on Dec. 1, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 6:42 am on Nov. 28, 2002


I don't kknow about you but I know that greed exist in the world.

You obviously feel that humans can be good and are an idealist

and I commend you for this

but this utopian idea simply can't work

human nature and emotions work against it

we can't devovle from economics

we can eventually evovle past it but that would take years of mental contemplation


That utopian dream can be achieved through the stages of communism. Through education and demonstration in a socialist government people will slowly rely less and less n the government for economic equality. As peoples counciousness grows the state withers until eventually we are left with a society that no longer requires the government to re-distribute the wealth.

"Human nature" is defined by the society we are in. To change human naure, we must change society.

(Edited by Socialist Pig at 9:19 pm on Dec. 1, 2002)



There is no way to obliterate emotion...Greed is an emotion...in ways.

Aslong as there is one person who is a greedy cappie UTopianism is at risk of falling and isn't safe

[Socialist Pig]

There is no way to obliterate emotion...Greed is an emotion...in ways.


If I belived that I wouldn't be a utopian communist :)

[apathy maybe]

if you need something, you ask for it. Then it is given to you. if someone asks something of you, you give it. Firstly, this would be upheld by the kindness of the individuals and secondly, by the community (if need be).
Wonderful idea.

I read a short novel about this called The Highest Treason by Randall Garrett. Published in a set of 10 short novels called the Giant Book of New World SF, Short Novels of the 1960's. Everyone was equal. There was no love as that implied that one was more equal then another. A woman wasn't allowed to refuse herself to a man as that would imply her husband was better then him. Everyone smart or not eventually became a General, (of they were in the armed forces) etc. This may not be the kind of society we want.
In addition, children should not be totally raised in a family setting. If at all. Creches were they could interact with each other and with trained (most of today's parents when they have there first child have no idea, many still don't after 2nd or 3rd.) childcare people. People may still say we need families but for how long.